California Family Code § 782: Protection of Community Property in Interspousal Tort Cases

Plain-Language Summary

California Family Code § 782 addresses what happens when one spouse causes injury to the other spouse, creating a legal liability (for example, a personal injury claim or court judgment between spouses). This law ensures that the spouse who was harmed (the “injured spouse”) is not forced to use their share of community property to pay for the damages caused by the other spouse. In simpler terms, if your spouse harms you and owes you damages, they must first use their own separate money or assets to pay what they owe, before any shared marital assets are used.

Specifically, § 782 provides that community property (the assets acquired during marriage that belong equally to both spouses) cannot be used to satisfy the wrongdoer spouse’s liability to the injured spouse until the wrongdoer’s separate property is exhausted. This prevents the wrongdoer from depleting assets that belong in part to the victim spouse in order to pay for their own wrongdoing. It effectively protects the innocent spouse’s half of the community property from being taken to cover the other spouse’s tort liability.

There are a couple of important exceptions built into the law. First, the injured spouse can consent in writing, after the incident, to allow community property to be used to satisfy the liability – for example, spouses might agree as part of a settlement or divorce that some community funds will go toward the injury damages. This written consent is the only way community assets can be used to pay the debt before the wrongdoer’s separate property is exhausted. Second, § 782 makes clear that it does not affect insurance or indemnity agreements. If an insurance policy (such as auto insurance or homeowner’s insurance) covers the injury, the insurer can pay the claim as normal, even if the insurance was paid for with community funds. In other words, insurance payouts are not restricted by this law – the injured spouse can still benefit from insurance coverage without first exhausting the wrongdoer’s separate property.

Real-World Examples

Domestic Violence Scenario: A wife intentionally injures her husband during an incident of domestic violence, and the husband later sues her for his medical costs and pain and suffering. Under Family Code § 782, any judgment the husband obtains must be paid out of the wife’s separate property first (for example, her own savings, inheritance, or other separate assets). The couple’s community property – such as joint bank accounts or the family home, which are owned 50/50 – cannot be used to pay the husband’s damage award until the wife’s separate assets are completely used up. This rule ensures the husband does not effectively have to pay himself with assets that are partly his; it protects his half of the community property from being taken to satisfy the wife’s debt for injuring him.
Negligent Injury with Insurance: Imagine a husband accidentally backs the car into his wife, causing injury. The wife brings a personal injury claim against the husband. If the husband is found liable for her injuries, § 782 means the husband’s own separate property must be used to pay any damages owed to the wife before touching community funds. For instance, if the husband has a separate property investment account, that would be tapped first to pay the judgment. Only if his separate property is insufficient, and only if the wife agrees in writing, could community property be used to cover the remainder. However, suppose the couple’s auto insurance covers the accident – in that case, the insurance can pay for the wife’s damages normally. The law wouldn’t require the husband to personally exhaust his savings before insurance benefits kick in, because insurance payouts are permitted regardless of the source of the premium.

Published Case Law on § 782

There are relatively few published appellate cases interpreting Family Code § 782 directly, likely because the statute’s mandate is clear and often applied straightforwardly in divorce property divisions or settlements. However, California courts have long recognized the principle that an innocent spouse should not have to bear the financial burden of the other spouse’s wrongful acts. Prior to the Family Code (which took effect in 1994), similar rules existed under the Civil Code. Some notable cases illustrate how courts handle these situations:

In re Marriage of Stitt (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 579 – In this pre-§ 782 case (decided under former Civil Code provisions), a wife had incurred legal debts and restitution obligations due to embezzlement (a crime she committed which did not benefit the community). The Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s decision to assign those debts entirely to the wife rather than treating them as community obligations. In effect, the wife’s separate property and her share of community property were responsible for the debt, and the innocent husband’s 50% share of the community was not used to pay for the wife’s wrongdoing. This case exemplifies the policy later codified in § 782: an innocent spouse’s portion of community assets shouldn’t be diminished because of the other spouse’s intentional wrongdoing.
In re Marriage of McNeill (1984) 160 Cal.App.3d 548 – Here, the wife defrauded the husband during the marriage (convincing him to sign over assets through deceit). The husband obtained a civil judgment against the wife for fraud, including compensatory and punitive damages, and that civil case was consolidated with their divorce. The Court of Appeal approved an outcome where the husband’s damages award was satisfied from the wife’s assets, specifically by charging it against the wife’s share of the community property (after her separate property was exhausted), rather than reducing the husband’s share. This ensured the husband received the full benefit of his damages award and didn’t essentially pay himself with property he owned. McNeill, though decided before § 782 existed, reflects the same equitable principle – a spouse who is victimized by the other can be made whole out of the offending spouse’s share of assets, without raiding the victim’s half.

If an interspousal injury occurs today, courts handling a divorce or civil lawsuit will apply Family Code § 782 to reach a fair result along the lines of the above cases. Notably, since § 782’s enactment, no published appellate decision has had to overturn or clarify it – the rule is straightforward, and spouses or their insurers typically settle these matters in line with the statute’s requirements.

Full Text of California Family Code § 782

(a) Where an injury to a married person is caused in whole or in part by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of the person’s spouse, the community property may not be used to discharge the liability of the tortfeasor spouse to the injured spouse or the liability to make contribution to a joint tortfeasor until the separate property of the tortfeasor spouse, not exempt from enforcement of a money judgment, is exhausted.

(b) This section does not prevent the use of community property to discharge a liability referred to in subdivision (a) if the injured spouse gives written consent thereto after the occurrence of the injury.

(c) This section does not affect the right to indemnity provided by an insurance or other contract to discharge the tortfeasor spouse’s liability, whether or not the consideration given for the contract consisted of community property.

This content is provided for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Laws and their interpretations can change, and how the law applies to your specific situation may vary. For advice regarding your own circumstances, consult a qualified attorney.